Landon > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 01:38:42 +0000 (UTC),
>(Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>>Well, in the absence of supporting data, what do you believe?
>>That excessive U.S. consumption is only killing 500 people annually
>>instead of the 500,000 you have stated?
>
>What I'm saying is that using the method of responsibility assignment
>you've used isn't science, it's guessing. You GUESS the percentages
>would be the same. You've offered no proof of it.
>>
>>>It seems that you're saying "Unless something is proven to make my
>>>assumption inaccurate, then I'll believe what I have assumed to be
>>>true."
>>
>>>That isn't how science works. Assumptions are not allowed in science.
>>
>>That's not at ALL what I'm saying. I'm saying that if a sample is
>>behaving in a certain way, then unless there's a reason to believe
>>otherwise, that behavior also best any describes any sub-sample. You
>>would need positive evidence to assert that the U.S. is different
>>from the rest of the world. You're claiming the U.S. is different;
>>so you're the one who's on the hook for presenting said evidence.
>
>No, that isn't the way it works. You've submitted that you THINK,
>based on a logical assumption, that the percentage numbers match all
>aspects of the argument.
>
>Thinking something is true and assuming it so based on logical
>assumption is not science.
>
>Evidence supporting your assumptions is proof. You've offered none.
>>
>>>Proof by Peer reviewed analysis and review is what is accepted.
>>>
>>>You've not supplied any proof. Just assumptions.
>>
>>Your argument is very very weak. If you want to attack the original
>>source (the 40% figure) then fine, but given that result and the
>>absence of contrary evidence, I have stated the logical conclusions.
>>You're just resisting those conclusions because you don't want to
>>believe them.
>
>No, my argument is as solid as concrete. It's yours that is weak.
>
>Sorry.
>
>You've presented nothing but your own assumptions. No data, no science
>to back them.
>
>Actually, you have no argument worth consideration. Show me the data
>that supports your claims. Then I'll consider your assumptions after
>viewing the support data.
Let's try an analogy.
Suppose we have a pond full of fish. I take out 1000 fish, weigh
them and find their average weight is 5 pounds.
After tossing them back in, I take out another 20 fish, and tell
you that my best estimate of their weight is an average of 5 pounds.
Your position would be that of saying "no, that's not the best estimate.
These are not the same fish". Which would be okay if you had
some rationale that supported this -- but you don't.
This is not being scientific. A scientist believes the most likely
explanation for the observations at hand.
In this case, it's likely that the U.S. is producing its proportionate
fraction of worldwide pollution. If you want to believe it is
different from this, you will have to tell me why.
Steve